Just an FYI, Darq, you calling men whores in no way, shape, or form makes me feel less contempt for you than when I saw you call her a whore. But please, go on and fix the word for us and take away the negativity by throwing the word around. I super appreciate it.

Now, maybe when you exclusively call men whores, maybe I can get behind your crusade (not likely), but as long as you continue to use the word against women, you're a fucking asshole. Because I see you call a woman a whore and I certainly didn't go, "Well, gosh, as long as he says that to dudes, it's totally okay." Nothing more fucking obnoxious than some man saying "HURR HURR DON'T GET UPSET IT DOESN'T MEEEEAN ANYTHING." Because let me tell you, I frequent several forums and the amount of times I've seen a word like that used against a guy versus a woman makes the notion that you can take away the negativity by not making it gender exclusive (which, let's face it, in its most common usage it pretty much is, no matter the textbook definition) absolutely ridiculous. You're not helping the greater cause by calling men whores. You just look like some idiotic child who just wants some excuse to call a woman a whore.

I'm hoping you won't have the audacity to try to explain to me, a woman, that you mean no harm and what you're doing is okay but I won't hold my breath.

Then give me a list of english pejoratives I can use for "someone being sexually promiscuous and/or unfaithful" that isn't biased against women. Whore was the most neutral I could think of.
Check it: http://thesaurus.com/browse/whore

Also you're proving my point. It's the continued habit of society using the term against women that causes the association not the other way around. Words are weak, defenseless, inanimate objects that can do nothing without us putting them into context to give them meaning. We determine if they insult us or not.

As a descriptive, not a prescriptive language, THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO PERMANENT RULES FOR ENGLISH. It's what allows it to be flexible and incorporate so much jargon, slang, loanwords, calques, and neologisms. It's why it's okay to readily split an infinitive. The old meaning and connotations can be changed, it is possible, or at least I'd like to think so._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

No, Darq pulled out the dictionary because there was no way to argue the social context that the word embodies. Historical usage != current context. For instance, anchor baby may have some historical meaning that is non-offensive or equal opportunity offensive, but that's irrelevant to its use now.

The argument over the definition is a red herring at best. Yes, we're talking about the US, because as has been repeated over and over and over, we're discussing the word within a social context and the pretexts and connotations that go along with it. Since Darq is American, it seems obvious we'd be discussing his context, since he used the word. Stop me if this is making too much sense.

For what it's worth, I am WAAAAAY radical left in my english language views_________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

Then give me a list of english pejoratives I can use for "someone being sexually promiscuous and/or unfaithful" that isn't biased against women. Whore was the most neutral I could think of.
Check it: http://thesaurus.com/browse/whore

So you admit the term is used mainly as a pejorative against women now?
Does the fact that all of its synonyms also apply mainly to women not drive home the point about the double standard faced by women regarding claims of promiscuity, vis a vis the fact that there are no male-only pejorative terms for being promiscuous?

Quote:

Also you're proving my point. It's the continued habit of society using the term against women that causes the association not the other way around.

Okay, so when you use the word to denigrate a woman for her sexual promiscuity, as you did here, you're fighting the good fight... right?

Quote:

Words are weak, defenseless, inanimate objects that can do nothing without us putting them into context to give them meaning. We determine if they insult us or not.

Is this a, "It's not my fault my insults hurt you, it's yours" argument? Wow, dude. You are just skyrocketing up the egalitarian charts here. Next you'll claim if a woman gets raped she must be asking for it.

Quote:

As a descriptive, not a prescriptive language, THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO PERMANENT RULES FOR ENGLISH. It's what allows it to be flexible and incorporate so much jargon, slang, loanwords, calques, and neologisms. It's why it's okay to readily split an infinitive. The old meaning and connotations can be changed, it is possible, or at least I'd like to think so.

Yeah. A lot of people took linguistics or anthropology 101. The funny thing about telling people that they shouldn't be offended by a word? That's prescriptivism. The connotations of a word develop as a result of social factors over time. They're arbitrary and fluid. You cannot tell someone what a word should mean to them.

Quote:

For what it's worth, I am WAAAAAY radical left in my english language views

I have no idea what the fuck this means. Denying linguistic prescription isn't radical... like at all. It's the norm. Do you mean you deny the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? You believe language is an innate structure in the human brain? If you could make this somehow relevant to the discussion of context that would be super._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

For what it's worth, I am WAAAAAY radical left in my english language views

Eh. No. The lingustic origin of the swedish eqvivalent of "cunt" is an olde norse word meaning wet meadows (and implying the female genitalia). This origin does not magically evaporate the social context of the word in the past 150 years or so. I don't see how you can claim to be "radical left" in your english language views yet think etymology trumps social context._________________A cigarette is the perfect type of a perfect pleasure. It is exquisite, and it leaves one unsatisfied. What more can one want? ~Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

Oh jesus fucking christ. I just went back through this thread a bit. Yeah you know what u guy's if I, as a white man, calls a person of sub-saharan descent a "stupid nigger" that's completly not problematic because after all it's just a variation of the latin nigra meaning black beacuese there is nothing offensive about the colour black and I mean stupidity is bad right?
I mean if I painted my face with charcoal that would make me black too right? See, completly neutral and non-problematic._________________A cigarette is the perfect type of a perfect pleasure. It is exquisite, and it leaves one unsatisfied. What more can one want? ~Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

Naive realism it is, then. Now that Guest is here at least he won't feel alone.

I beg your pardon?

I forgot to respond to this earlier! Sorry!

... anyway. Did I stutter? Or are you unsure of which side of this argument you're on? Because I think it's pretty clear to everyone else. Let me know if I need to break it down for you. I promise to sober up by then (I work tomorrow, after all - can't be drunk all the time!) so I'll even be polite... ish._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

Then give me a list of english pejoratives I can use for "someone being sexually promiscuous and/or unfaithful" that isn't biased against women. Whore was the most neutral I could think of.
Check it: http://thesaurus.com/browse/whore

How about you don't use any words? And by that I don't mean express your horrible views through interpretive dance, I mean shut the fuck up, Darq. Maybe you shouldn't be shaming people for being 'sexually promiscuous and/or unfaithful'?

Reminder that when confronted with a woman being physically abused by her boyfriend as a petty act of revenge, Darq immediately shamed the woman for making a big deal out the permanent damage done to her body. Immediately assuming that the boyfriend's version of the story was correct and immediately assuming punitive tattoos are an appropriate response to this, he decided to call this 'cheating whore' out. Fighting the good fight!

Tell me, Darq, what if the boyfriend had raped her for cheating on him? Would you still call her out when she wants justice? Where between permanent damage to her body and rape does it become acceptable for her to complain?_________________attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose

Then give me a list of english pejoratives I can use for "someone being sexually promiscuous and/or unfaithful" that isn't biased against women. Whore was the most neutral I could think of.
Check it: http://thesaurus.com/browse/whore

How about you don't use any words? And by that I don't mean express your horrible views through interpretive dance, I mean shut the fuck up, Darq. Maybe you shouldn't be shaming people for being 'sexually promiscuous and/or unfaithful'?

Reminder that when confronted with a woman being physically abused by her boyfriend as a petty act of revenge, Darq immediately shamed the woman for making a big deal out the permanent damage done to her body. Immediately assuming that the boyfriend's version of the story was correct and immediately assuming punitive tattoos are an appropriate response to this, he decided to call this 'cheating whore' out. Fighting the good fight!

Tell me, Darq, what if the boyfriend had raped her for cheating on him? Would you still call her out when she wants justice? Where between permanent damage to her body and rape does it become acceptable for her to complain?

Hear hear. I would also like to note that tattooing a giant turd on someones back as a punishment might seem toilet-humour humorous but if you take a second or two to think about what it, if this was real, would actually mean. Not only is it a permanent violation of that individual it is very much comparable to a violent assault and indeed that is how the law would regard it.

And really, so fucking what if she had slept with someone behind his back?_________________A cigarette is the perfect type of a perfect pleasure. It is exquisite, and it leaves one unsatisfied. What more can one want? ~Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

Second, Darq, you need to stop doing etymology if that's how you're going to do it. Proto-Indo-European existed some several thousand years before proto-Germanic. To suggest that a positive connotation in PIE makes whore A-ok is absurd. Furthermore, that proto-Germanic word in Wiki (kohoron) is a feminine noun, so it is gender-specific.
Source

Even if you weren't factually wrong about everything (and, just to be clear, you are completely wrong), Dogen, Willem, and Him are all correct about word connotations.

Now I've already spent more time on this than it deserved._________________Scire aliquid laus est, pudor est non discere velle
"It is laudable to know something, it is disgraceful to not want to learn"
~Seneca

Then give me a list of english pejoratives I can use for "someone being sexually promiscuous and/or unfaithful" that isn't biased against women. Whore was the most neutral I could think of.
Check it: http://thesaurus.com/browse/whore

So you admit the term is used mainly as a pejorative against women now?
Does the fact that all of its synonyms also apply mainly to women not drive home the point about the double standard faced by women regarding claims of promiscuity, vis a vis the fact that there are no male-only pejorative terms for being promiscuous?

As I see it there should be pejorative terms that are gender neutral. I understand why there's not (patriarchy and what not) but there's nothing immutable or fixed about it.

Quote:

Quote:

Also you're proving my point. It's the continued habit of society using the term against women that causes the association not the other way around.

Okay, so when you use the word to denigrate a woman for her sexual promiscuity, as you did here, you're fighting the good fight... right?

No, I denigrated a person, I didn't take her sex into account except when choosing the gender of pronoun. Had the roles been reversed I would have called him a whore.

Quote:

Quote:

Words are weak, defenseless, inanimate objects that can do nothing without us putting them into context to give them meaning. We determine if they insult us or not.

Is this a, "It's not my fault my insults hurt you, it's yours" argument? Wow, dude. You are just skyrocketing up the egalitarian charts here. Next you'll claim if a woman gets raped she must be asking for it.

You're right, taking the stance of trying to change the majority of the world's view is ludicrously stupid and utterly doomed venture but it's the overly idealistic stance I take. Also I think people need to learn to not get insulted so readily, I'm pretty sure it hasn't helped humankind in the long run, but to me that's only partially related. When a person IS insulted I feel they should, if able to, ask the offender to clarify their position to verify the context of their statement. You know, something you can readily do on an internet forum. Also, overly promiscuous behavior simply isn't healthy for the general populace or the individual and neither is betraying a loved one's trust. As someone who is in favor of some forms of punitive justice I see insults as an interpersonal extension of that i.e. you commit this social violation you receive this verbal punishment. It's pretty much what Willem has been doing to me with all the name calling since he sees me as having violated one of his mores.

Lastly, I feel chastising a person for their actions isn't the same as denigrating them for an intrinsic value or attribute of theirs. That's why I'm ok with words like 'whore' and 'dick' but not 'bitch' or 'nigger' and why i feel terms like 'fat ass' shouldn't be unilaterally applied.

Quote:

Quote:

As a descriptive, not a prescriptive language, THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO PERMANENT RULES FOR ENGLISH. It's what allows it to be flexible and incorporate so much jargon, slang, loanwords, calques, and neologisms. It's why it's okay to readily split an infinitive. The old meaning and connotations can be changed, it is possible, or at least I'd like to think so.

Yeah. A lot of people took linguistics or anthropology 101. The funny thing about telling people that they shouldn't be offended by a word? That's prescriptivism. The connotations of a word develop as a result of social factors over time. They're arbitrary and fluid. You cannot tell someone what a word should mean to them.

I said people shouldn't be offended? Did I? Of course you can't tell them, but you can try to persuade them.

Quote:

For what it's worth, I am WAAAAAY radical left in my english language views

I have no idea what the fuck this means. Denying linguistic prescription isn't radical... like at all. It's the norm. Do you mean you deny the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? You believe language is an innate structure in the human brain? If you could make this somehow relevant to the discussion of context that would be super.[/quote]I think I explained this above. Feel free to call me insane, I'll sit comfortably outside the asylum._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake